Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to Barrick Gold Year End 2010 Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] And now, I have the pleasure to turn the call over to Mr. Deni Nicoski, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I will bring to your attention the fact that we will be making forward-looking statements during the course of this presentation. For a complete discussion of the risks, uncertainties and factors which may lead to our actual financial results and performance being different from the estimates contained in our forward-looking statements, please refer to our year-end report or our most recent AIF filing. With that, I will hand it over to Aaron Regent, President and CEO of Barrick.

Great. Thanks, Deni, and good morning, and thank you for joining our conference call. I'm joined here today by Jamie Sokalsky, Peter Kinver and Kelvin Dushnisky, and there are members of our senior team here as well, who will also be available to answer your questions later. I'll start by covering some of the highlights of the year and the quarter, and then provide an update on our reserves and projects. And then I'll turn the call over to Jamie to take you through our financial results, our financial position and our views an the outlook for gold and a bit more detail, after which we'd be happy to take any questions that you might have. Overall, 2010 was a successful year for Barrick. We achieved our operating and cost targets for the year, marking the eighth straight year we've been able to do so, and delivered higher gold production at lower cash costs compared to 2009. Gold production increased to 7.8 million ounces at total cash cost of $457 per ounce or $341 per ounce on a net cash cost basis. Costs were in line with original guidance despite higher royalties and taxes associated with the higher gold price. And I think our consistent performance really reflects the benefit of having a high-quality geographically diversified portfolio. Combined with the increase in the gold price, this translated into record financial results and good returns on shareholder equity. Net income for the year was a record $3.27 billion, while cash flow from operations was also a record at $4.13 billion. On an adjusted basis, net income was $3.28 billion, up 81% from 2009 and operating cash flow was $4.8 billion or 65% higher than the previous year. These translated into an increased return on equity to 19%, up from 12% in…

Thanks, Aaron. As Aaron mentioned, 2010 was an excellent year for Barrick, with both higher production and lower costs than the previous year. Our gold production of 7.8 million ounces for the year was 5% higher than a year ago, and our cash margins continue to benefit from the higher gold prices. On a total cash cost basis, our cash margins increased 48% to $771 per ounce versus gold's 26% rise. While on a net cash cost basis, margins were 42% higher at $887 per ounce. These expanding margins translated into record earnings and cash flow for the company. Adjusted net income of $3.3 billion for the year was 81% higher than the prior year, while adjusted operating cash flow rose 65% to $4.8 billion. When we eliminated the hedge book in late 2009, there remained a settlement obligation to our counterparties, which wasn't tied to the gold price of just over $650 million, which was essentially an interest-bearing liability. We had left this outstanding at the time, since it provided additional long-term bank financing at attractive terms. However, with our strong cash and operating cash flow positions, we decided to repay the liability, and that was required to go through operating cash flow on our financial statements with no impact on earnings, of course. So the difference between reported operating cash flow of $4.1 billion and our adjusted cash flow of $4.8 billion is the payment to eliminate this liability in the fourth quarter of 2010. And I think it's also important to note that we generated free cash flow of about $1.5 billion in 2010 even after significant investment in our development projects. The company has shown significant margin expansion in the past several years as we continue to benefit from the rising gold prices. Our total cash…

Okay. Thank you, Jamie. In closing, as Jamie highlighted, we continue to have a positive outlook for gold, and we are well-positioned to be a major beneficiary, and I think that has been reflected in the financial performance of the company. The fourth quarter was a solid quarter, and I think completes a successful year for the company. We delivered on our operating plans, and with the higher gold prices that has translated into significant margin expansion and record financial results. Cortez exceeded our expectations in 2010, and was an excellent contributor. Our other projects, in particular, PV and Pascua-Lama will have a similar impact when they are in operation within the next few years. We've made good progress in identifying opportunities within our existing asset base to support and grow our production levels in the future, and this has allowed us to establish a new production target of 9 million ounces with the next five years, and we're going to continue to work on that. And our focus on servicing value for our existing assets will remain a key priority for us. And it's clear there are benefits that can be derived; one example of this is Turquoise Ridge, which has the potential to be a world-class asset. Our CS performance has been positive, but as I mentioned, there is room for improvement, and we will continue to look for ways where we can do better and strengthen our performance. So overall, the outlook for our industry and for Barrick continues to be excellent based on today's gold and copper prices. Combined with our production and cost profile, 2011 should be another strong year for the company. That concludes our formal presentation. And at this point, we'd be happy to take your questions.

[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of John Bridges, JPMorgan.

Just a quick one on Pascua-Lama, since you did the silver streaming deal with Silver Wheaton, how is the accounting for that going to work, and how do you anticipate accounting for that in the cash cost calculations and so on?

Maybe, Jamie, you can…

Sure. John, what we'll see is essentially, the share of the 25% of Pascua-Lama silver that was sold to Silver Wheaton, effectively, the average rate on that equated to about a $13 per ounce, I guess revenue stream on that silver. So that will actually then form part of the byproduct credit at $13, approximately, that will be credited against the overall cash costs at Pascua-Lama. So on that 25% portion, we will see that rate. And then on the 75% that hasn't been sold, that will just be credited at whatever the spot price rate is.

Okay, so it's very simple. I was afraid that something…

Yes.

Complicated would come out amount of the new accounting standards.

No, it should be very simple.

Perfect. And on the social corporate responsibility, the best of luck with that. I just wish there was a way we could highlight the positives of the industry. It just seems as if the negative seems to get in the press all the time.

We share your concern and frustration, and we have a lot of programs underway to help improve the situation. So hopefully, we'll get some traction.

And the following question, coming from the line of Patrick Chidley with HSBC.

Just a couple of questions on the reserve changes, resource changes. I note, yes, you did increase the resources quite a lot Turquoise Ridge, which is great. And I guess that is with a concept of this open pit idea that you're working on. I'm wondering if that increase, that resource there has some conceptual economics around it in terms of maybe a strip ratio for the pit?

Can I answer that, Aaron?

Yes.

You're correct, that increase in resources, primarily the concept of the pit. We have put some sort of rough economics around it, but it's probably too early to actually land on an actual strip ratio. The strip ratio will be fairly high, but the grades there are pretty good, so it will pull a pit with a fairly high strip ratio, we think.

Is fairly higher a range of more than five or less than 10 or…

Probably more than five, but I wouldn't want to land on a number now.

I think you talked about increases at Cortez Hills, I guess. I know you've been doing a lot of exploration work there, and I noticed that the increase in resources at Cortez isn't really that much. I just thought maybe there'd be a bigger increase there this year?

Do you want to answer that, Rob?

Sure. At Cortez Hills, you might recall several years ago, we discovered the Cortez Hills in lower zone. We traced that zone for over a kilometer to the south, and when we basically gave up tracing, it was just getting a little bit too deep to pursue it from the surface. So we're now putting in some development and drilling it out in detail. As we've been extending our drilling away from the base of the pit, we actually have been adding both increased tons and grade as well. So that's coming along quite well, it's infilling quite well. And we're also growing a mineral inventory and in future years, I guess, we expected to grow that significantly.

Okay. So you're growing a mineral inventory there, and is that, I mean, sort of going to be a lot bigger than the current resource, you think, or what sort of dimensions?

I think it's a little bit too early to say. We're also picking up additional mineralization in new stratographic horizons, and that's really only tagged by a few drill holes. It's just too early to say.

Okay, okay. And then finally, just on that reserve table, the resource at Plutonic seemed to go down a lot, by about over a million ounces. And I'm wondering what the reason for that was?

The reason for that is mainly a reinterpretation. Plutonic's a very difficult mine geologically, and we thought it would be prudent to remove some of the reserves on a reinterpretation of some of the drilling.

Okay, so just geology there. And just actually, one more while I'm at it, Reko Diq, you've not put a reserve up there, and yet you've got a feasibility study now. When do you think we should expect some kind of reserve then?

Well, I think on Reko Diq, where we are right now, as I mentioned in my remarks, that we have applied for the mining license, and there are some legal proceedings that are taking place right now in Pakistan, which is centered around the authority of the government of Balochistan to be able to issue the mining lease. And so until we have clarity about that, and I think it'd be premature for us to include anything in our reserves.

Okay. So that's an ongoing issue and I suspect not anytime soon for resolution, is that correct?

No, I wouldn't be that pessimistic. I think that we have had a very, very good dialogue with the government of Balochistan. There's a lot of support for the project. So I would be cautiously optimistic, but I don't want to over promise anything.

And the following question comes from the line of George Topping with Stifel.

Say, could you give us an update on which mines you expect to close over the next five years?

The next closure will be Pierina, which is roughly four years, I think.

Yes, it's been extended.

Yes, four to five years range. The others, Hemlo was in sort of closure mode, but we've had a life extension there for, I'm just looking at my notes here, of four years up to 2016. So only the next five years, Tulawaka would be probably closing, if we do not continue to find ore underground. So apart from that, I think all the others are plus five years.

And we should say that Hemlo, that there's probably potential to extend it beyond 2016 as well.

Yes.

Great, great. And so that would include the Pierina, Yilgarn and Kanowna?

Kanowna, they're all plus five years.

The following question coming from the line of Kerry Smith, Haywood Securities.

Jamie, the selective royalty that you're paying now in Chile, is that something that we should just model that it's going to continue to be paid forever, or do you think it's something that as they work through the repayment of the rebuilding of the country that, that will drop away at some point in time?

Well, I think on the royalty, Kerry, you should continue to model that for the next while. We've elected that to pay that royalty and they've established a range that actually is flexible based on the prices. So if prices are high, then you pay a higher royalty. If the prices come back down, then it's a lower royalty. But that's going to continue and we opted in to that, agreed to that payment for an extension of the stabilization. So yes, you should continue to model that. On the taxation front, the increase in the tax rate from the 17% over the next few years, that is a temporary increase in tax, and that will come back down to the 17%, so that has a more temporary nature to it, but the royalties are longer-term, a long-term basis.

Okay. And have they said when the temporary tax increase will drop back to the old rate?

After three years, it'll come back down to the 17% rate, so goes up to 18.5%, 20%. That comes back down to 18.5%, and then 17% on a yearly basis.

Great, okay. And Peter, the higher grades that you talked about at Cortez in 2010, was that a function of the block model underestimating the grade that you actually mined? Or was that a function of mining in different areas than you originally planned to mine? And should we sort of expect that maybe the grades might be modestly better as you go forward here?

Well, I think it's early days yet. We only mine sort of the top of the ore bodies, so it's difficult to judge what's going to happen for the rest. But it's encouraging to see that the current grades are higher than the block model. And are going to continue seeing that? We'd obviously like to see it continue in the future.

Okay. And can you just remind me how much contingency you had built-in to the original CapEx estimate for Pueblo Viejo? I presume you've probably used all that now, and that's part of the reason that you've pushed the CapEx up. But what was the original contingency?

$260 million.

$260 million, on a 100% basis, right?

Yes.

[Operator Instructions] The following question coming from the line of Greg Barnes, TD Securities.

Aaron, you've seen pretty good cost inflation on the CapEx side, but you still have held the line on the operating cost side. What's the difference?

Well, I think on the capital side, depending on which project you're looking at, and I kind of describe some of the factors that are hitting us, and some of those will also impact us on the operating side as well. But there are, depending on which project, take Pueblo Viejo, for example, there are other opportunities we have, which aren't in the numbers yet, which will positively impact our unit cost. Take PV; right now, we have assumed high-cost power is going to be supplied to the operation derived from HFO [heavy fuel oil] fuel. So we're looking longer term at using natural gas or coal, which could have a significant benefit impact on the cash cost. Pueblo Viejo, as well, we haven't factored in the economics of potentially being able to recover zinc, and that could also have a big impact on lowering our cash cost. So we think that the range that we have, we have enough flexibility within that range, plus there's some other factors, which will probably help us improve on those numbers. In Pascua-Lama, same thing that we have experienced some pressure, but using a $16 silver price, which we have increased slightly in our assumptions, that's kind of offset some of the cost increases that we would have seen. So it's, I guess, a bunch of factors like that, Greg, that give us confidence that the cost numbers are probably pretty sound.

Okay. I was actual thinking more about your 2011 guidance of $450 to $480 per ounce. We've seen the company's report lately that they're seeing their operating costs go up by anywhere up to 15% year-over-year, and you don't seem to be seeing the same pressure. Wondering why.

Yes, look, I think one of the major reasons for our increase in costs year-over-year, probably about half of that increase is due to grade. So we are mining lower grade, but we are experiencing cost pressures when it comes to things such as steel, steel products, other consumables. That being said, we do have a -- we are benefiting from the fact that we have hedges in place. So with respect to the Aussie currency, for example, we've got protection there. Oil, we've got protection as well. So that's insulating us somewhat, but the other benefit is the impact of Cortez. Cortez is going to be sub-$300, so that has a nice impact on pulling down our numbers.

[Operator Instructions] Mr. Regent, we have no more questions at this time.

Okay. Well, operator, thank you very much. And thank you, everyone, for joining our call. We appreciate your questions and if you have any other questions, please let us know. I guess I'll conclude the call at this point, and we look forward to reporting back to you at the end of the first quarter. Thanks very much, and have a great day.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude our call for today. We thank you for your participation, and ask that you please disconnect your lines.